Rich Rod's contract...the actual contract
I did a search of the forums and website and didn't find anything so I apologize if this has already been posted.
This link is the .pdf of RRs contract with Michigan, the USA Today must have filed a FOIA or something, its pretty interesting as it has his buyout and terms for dismissal.
http://i.usatoday.net/sports/graphics/2010/coaches-contracts/pdfs/michigan_rodriguez_rich_38.pdf
In section 4.02 (e) the contract states: The University has the right to terminate the employment of Rodrigez for cause in the event of the following:
(e) Rodriguez is determined by the NCAA, the Big Ten Conference, or the University to have committed a major violation of the NCAA Rules, or to have intentionally committed any other type of violation of the NCAA Rules, pursuant to section 2.05 of this Agreement.
Doesn't this mean that the University could fire him without paying the $2.5 million buyout?
EDIT: I'm in my 4th year of med school so all this law talk confuses me and makes me feel like I'm getting sued, glad there are so many lawyers on mgoblog. If anyone couldn't tell by my avatar, I'm a big RR supporter, I just thought the actual wording in the contract was interesting.
December 21st, 2010 at 10:20 PM ^
oh man looks like all of this stuff is common knowledge, sorry. Maybe people will find the link to the actual contract useful, I feel like an idiot.
December 21st, 2010 at 10:22 PM ^
It made it's rounds heavily after he was initially hired. It's how people know things like the reduced buyout clauses if he were to be fired for NCAA related sanction things. I'm not going to delete it in case anyone takes interest with it, but hadn't seen it recently.
December 21st, 2010 at 10:24 PM ^
December 21st, 2010 at 10:38 PM ^
Would you accept payment in MGoPoints?
December 21st, 2010 at 11:20 PM ^
I am willing to back you financially and philosophically in your struggle to free Fuman Blue. When are we going to spring the jail break?
December 21st, 2010 at 11:45 PM ^
Perhaps a laser guided missle if negotiations break down?
December 22nd, 2010 at 12:54 PM ^
Missile*
No ill will intended, just noticed this was the second time Mr. Hackney.
December 22nd, 2010 at 7:57 AM ^
I'll donate 10% of my points to Fu. If enough do it, we can spring him for Christmas.
December 22nd, 2010 at 9:01 AM ^
I'm in for 10%. How can we make it happen?
December 22nd, 2010 at 10:59 AM ^
if it's possible. It'd be like "It's a wonderfull life".
December 22nd, 2010 at 8:55 PM ^
I'd start a thread about it, but I don't want to get an OT smackdown.
December 21st, 2010 at 10:22 PM ^
Can a lawyer examine this?
December 21st, 2010 at 10:23 PM ^
(a) Immediately prior to any notice of dismissal or discussion of the same shall result in a remarkable and or unwieldy volume of highly speculative threads at MGoBlog regarding said dismissal and/or the related terms. Secondary high volume threads may also involve speculation regarding defensive coordinators, recruit commitments and retention and/or one James Harbaugh.
December 21st, 2010 at 10:26 PM ^
December 21st, 2010 at 11:00 PM ^
I am sure some sort of timeframe is implied. They can't try to claim a year later they are firing him for NCAA violations when really it is because he hasn't won games. My rate is $375 and I don't mgoblog during that time!
December 21st, 2010 at 11:10 PM ^
The administration fighting and eventually getting dropped the 'failure to promote an atmosphere of compliance' charge might also increase the difficulty of firing RR for NCAA violations.
December 22nd, 2010 at 12:21 AM ^
After 10+ years of watching legal dramas on TV (which is in-fact recognized by some SEC bars) I can comfortably say it doesn't, but shouldn't the "and eventually getting dropped" extricate the University from any culpability?
/Pro-RRod
//First slash will probably get me downvotes.
December 21st, 2010 at 11:34 PM ^
"They can't try to claim a year later they are firing him for NCAA violations when really it is because he hasn't won games."
In a similar vein, RR is claiming a medical redshirt for Devin Gardner now when it is really because he played him during games that he shouldn't have.
Issues can be spun in many ways. The side with the most money usually wins in the end.
December 21st, 2010 at 11:37 PM ^
doesn't actually have a valid legal argument, which, as a corporate attorney, I can tell you happens more often than you might think.
December 21st, 2010 at 11:46 PM ^
December 22nd, 2010 at 12:01 AM ^
In a similar vein, RR is claiming a medical redshirt for Devin Gardner now when it is really because he played him during games that he shouldn't have.
With all due respect, this is an absolutely terrible comparison. The two situations are almost nothing like one another.
December 22nd, 2010 at 7:56 AM ^
a) you don't know that Devin didn't sustain an injury *wink wink*
b) this happens at every school in the country, without exception
c) this is not "in a similar vein"
December 21st, 2010 at 10:25 PM ^
But I remember that David Brandon explicitly said that RR's role in this was not a fireable offense, when asked (probably by the FREEP, if someone wants to find this source).
In this case, I think they would have had to fire him right away, and not after he subsequently lost to Wisconsin and OSU. UM would have to justify that the "major violations" were the cause for his termination, and not the on-field performance -- and I'm not sure that's really supportable.
*Pretty funny how preemptively apologetic people have gotten about re-posting things. The wolves are circling.
December 21st, 2010 at 10:29 PM ^
December 21st, 2010 at 10:31 PM ^
don't you sass me.
December 21st, 2010 at 10:37 PM ^
Barring anything specifically contained in the contract, the issue would turn on what is considered to be a "timely" dismissal as compared to a dismissal after such an extended period as to constitute a waiver.
In this case, I think that the university would have a decent argument that firing RR after the completion of the season was, in fact, timely because firing him at a prior point could have resulted in harm to the university (i.e. it would be bad for the team to fire RR mid-season or even before the bowl game). Firing RR after the complation of the season could be argued to be the earliest reasonable time that the university could have fired RR without inflicting harm on the team.
If the university were to allow RR back next year, however, this would likely constitute a waiver.
December 21st, 2010 at 10:52 PM ^
From a PR standpoint, I really don't think Dave Brandon or the university would try to use the violations as cause for theoretical RR termination - even for 2.5 mil.
It would look particularly ugly for the athletic department and university as this stance would fly in the face of everything DB has publicly said to this point.
Athletic director David Brandon has said several times that he did not believe the violations rose to the level of fireable offense.
You don't want to anger coaching community because we (hypothetically) would treat our own like this.
December 22nd, 2010 at 7:08 AM ^
Any effort to fire b/c of the violations would serve the University no good purpose and would merely make lawyers lots of money arguing over it.
December 22nd, 2010 at 9:37 AM ^
I wasn't saying that DB would ever do this - I think that he wouldn't - but I was just giving legal opinion of the possible options available.
You are correct, though, that ultimately, the only ones who would win in this situation would be the lawyers. (Wait, I am a lawyer. Maybe this is a good thing??)
The issue of whether the termination was sufficiently close in time to the finding of major violations to avoid resulting in a waiver is a question of fact - it is a judgment call for the finders of fact (jury, arbitrators). Such cases are more difficult to settle, so a protracted battle could result.
Ultimately, if RR were fired, and DB wanted to use the violations to financially benefit the university, I would imagine a sit down conversation wherein DB says, "look Rich, we could make this argument and try to get out of the buy-out clause altogether. And we could have a nasty, public legal fight, which as you know from WVU benefits nobody. Or, we could settle this like business men. How about you take (insert figure here - maybe $1.5 million or $1 million) and we part amicably." That's how business gets done outside the back hills of Morgantown, WV (dig at WVU Jihad, not RR).
December 21st, 2010 at 10:45 PM ^
is not going anywhere.
December 21st, 2010 at 10:56 PM ^
With all this CC talk I had forgotten that RR is our coach and has a contract that extends beyond January 1. Silly me.
December 21st, 2010 at 11:13 PM ^
This has been discussed ad nauseum.
December 22nd, 2010 at 7:11 AM ^
December 21st, 2010 at 11:14 PM ^
No, it can't be used to justify termination now. The law imposes a requirement that, when a party knows it has the right to terminate a contract for cause, it must exercise that right in a "reasonable" time BEFORE allowing the contract to continue in force. It prevents the non-breaching party from gaining performance of the contract for a while but later declaring the contract terminated for some long-past event. This is called the "election of remedies" doctrine.
Brandon elected his remedy by allowing the contract to continue during the season. Thus, Michigan is deemed to have elected not to terminate based on the violations. (I would agree that Brandon publicly said that the violations were not substantial enough, in his judgment, to warrant dismissal -- although that is only an evidentiary point, not conclusive of the issue.)
Note, this is not a "waiver" argument as someone pointed out. Waiver is an alternative legal analysis, but election of remedy is not strictly speaking a waiver concept.
For the record, and this is merely a groteque coincidence, I have a law degree from the university where our potentially future coach as of Jan. 4 is currently coaching. And no, I never rooted for that team until JH started coaching it.
December 21st, 2010 at 11:31 PM ^
go to a real law school.
/UofC pride.
December 22nd, 2010 at 8:27 AM ^
Well as long as I'm on the internet, I go to Yale Law School
December 22nd, 2010 at 10:00 AM ^
December 21st, 2010 at 11:44 PM ^
Isn't "reasonable" open to interpretation? I would suggest that it was not reasonable to dismiss RR in August (or whenever the findings came down) because it was on the eve of the season (program continuity, player welfare....)
I think that you could argue that "reasonable" could be as soon as possible after completion of the current season. It might not be the cleanest move but I think that it merits legal interpretation.
It was mentioned earlier that Michigan would look petty to go after $2.5MM now. On the other hand, they already paid $2.5MM for the WVU payout so I consider it to be a wash.
December 22nd, 2010 at 3:27 AM ^
your summer interns?
December 22nd, 2010 at 4:44 AM ^
I thought that election of remedies is an equitable doctrine that only applies to incompatible remedies - i.e. you cannot elect a remedy if that remedy conflicts with another one that you have already elected. The point is to prevent someone from getting the benefit of the agreement and then seeking to terminate the agreement to avoid having to perform their side of the agreement. I don't think that applies to a situation like this where there is an agreement like this that is easily divisible and where neither party disputes the validity of the past performance. Why not look at each year as a unit, as is customary in coaching agreements, in which case you could accept the first three years and just terminate the last?
Unless Michigan would be trying to recover RR's salary from some of the time already spent coaching (e.g., the time of the violation until now), however, I don't see termination of the last year of the contract as being in conflict with retaining him through the end of the season. It is not as though they would be seeking rescission of the contract as a whole or the return of payment for past performance. They would simply be seeking to terminate the prospective application of the agreement in accordance with its terms.
December 22nd, 2010 at 9:06 AM ^
I think this is a better interpretation. The doctrine is only applied if the contract is silent. A good lawyer would make sure to address the issue in the contract. Here is some sample language that I use in loan documents:
You shall not be liable for failure to collect or to realize upon any collateral or security therefor, or any part thereof, or for any delay in so doing, nor shall you be under any obligation to take any action whatsoever with regard thereto.
The emphasized language is a "catch-all" provision that allows us to delay as long as we want without having to get into the "reasonableness" discussion. If the other party signs the contract with this language, then he/she/it has consented to and basically waived its rights under that common law doctrine. In other words, common law can be avoided entirely if the drafted is crafty enough.
December 22nd, 2010 at 11:59 AM ^
I see the makings of a new firm:
The Law Officies of Bluetimestwo, Michgoblue, Profitgoblue and Superstringer (alphabetical - can be reorganized according to seniority or MGoPoints).
Not sure that we would get much done, as evidenced by our copious time spent on this damn blog, but we would have some pretty cool offices decked out in all of our respective Michigan decor.
December 22nd, 2010 at 12:45 PM ^
Don't forget Blue in South Bend and waterdemos. Damn, can you imagine the name of that firm!? And you're right - we'd have to bill at some ridiculous rates to be profitable (no pun intended) based on the appearance of the amount of work we get done. Collectively, we might (I stress might) bill what I summer associate bills in a year . . .
December 22nd, 2010 at 10:05 AM ^
Its a good thing your degree is from there, because SOME people think a degree from here isn't worth much...
December 22nd, 2010 at 11:20 AM ^
The legal doctrines that you cite are correct, but you ignore the most relevant part: "it must exercise that right in a "reasonable" time."
First off, in the case of our violations, the clock would run from the date of the NCAA findings, not the date of the Freep attack. The NCAA presented its findings in mid-November. Firing RR on January 1 - less than 2 months after those findings would, in my opinion, not amount to an unreasonable delay.
Moreover, the "reasonableness" standard would also not require Michigan to take immediate actions if those actions would cause harm to the university. Here, it is certainly a plausable argument that firing RR mid-season would have caused irreparable harm to the university, both in terms of recruiting and a possible bowl bid. In addition, DB consistently communicated to RR (publicly, and likely, privately) that his evaluation would come at the end of the season, and that it would take into account ALL factors, presumably including the NCAA violations.
So, what I am saying is that it is not as clear cut as you make it. I have actually litigated numerous cases relating to contract termination provisions where this has been an issue, and it is never open and shut - it is an issue of fact, and one that would take into account a multitude of factors.
December 22nd, 2010 at 8:37 PM ^
If you want to consider factors such as recruiting, bowl bid, publicity hit to the university, then the "reasonable" time to fire RR would have occurred already. After all, stringing the process until the new year hurts recruiting, the search for a new coach (as other vacancies are being filled) and adds a cloud of uncertainty on the University, thereby affecting players and fans.
Any determination of "reasonableness" would have to rely on case law of the specific jurisdiction governed by the contract. I'm sure a contract such as this has a forum selection clause. For all we know, there could be binding arbitration.
But ultimately, from a practical perspective, I don't think the AD is waiting until Jan. 1 to save some money. Any protracted litigation would harm both sides, especially Rodriguez.
December 21st, 2010 at 11:30 PM ^
If we can get a home run hitter like Harbaugh who clearly knows how to build a power from nothing, rather than fart around with an existing power program like Rich has, it will be worth every penny.
December 21st, 2010 at 11:40 PM ^
Don't keep the guy who went 3-8, 9-4, 8-5, 8-4, 11-1!
Fire him and hire the guy who went 4-8, 5-7, 8-5, 11-1!
The first guy just farts around. The second guy, he's a home run hitter.